Rostrum’s Law Review | ISSN: 2321-3787



Crime investigation is inevitable in any civilized criminal justice system. To a certain extent the quality of a criminal justice system can be judged by looking at its conviction and acquittal rate. In India the conviction rate is less than 20% which is relatively very less when compared to other countries. Police reforms are being happening frequently, various capacity development programmes are being conducted from time to time, successive governments are spending crores of rupees for police modernization. However, even after putting such human efforts and investments the police is not able to increase the quality of the investigation. It is found from the analysis of the various defective investigation case studies that the errors committed by the investigating officer in most of cases are very ordinary procedural non-compliance which public/ state is legitimately expecting the compliance of the same from the  investigating officer. The studies reveals that 40-50% of cases are being acquitted on account of procedural noncompliance by the police officers during investigation. Now this is the reality, my effort in  this paper is to analysis the need for placing the investigating police under an investigating magistrate or judiciary.


Police is the instrumentality of state which is mainly entrusted with a function to maintain peace and order in the society. The functioning of the police makes the government good or bad and often becomes the yardstick of the efficiency or inefficiency of the administration. Thus the police department is the most sensitive department in every successive government.  The Police Act, 1861 is very categorical that it is having dual functions such as prevention and detection of crimes[1]. For  ensuring prevention and detention of crimes the police under the Criminal Procedure Code enjoys vast powers in terms of arrest, search, seizure, summons, preventive detentions etc. Police can arrest a person even on the ground of mear suspicion; can conduct a search without warrant; can confiscate anything on mear suspicion; can summon any person as a part of investigation etc.[2] So this wide power has been given to the police to ensure a quality, speedy and fair investigation. The Apex court has been reiterated frequently that quality and speedy investigation is the fundamental right of the every subject under Article 21 of the Constitution[3].

Investigation is the initiation of criminal proceedings where the case is prepared for starting criminal trial before the hierarchy of courts. It is the general understanding that the criminal law will set into motion when FIR is registered[4]. Every step of the investigation is pertinent and the investigating officer must be accountable for the same to the court during trial.  In other words, every step of the investigating officer during the investigation is a separate procedure which is to be complied in accordance with law or due process of law, otherwise it will be fatal to the prosecution. Hence the unwritten rule of investigation is that strict adherence to the procedure should be the rule rather than exception. As we know that once the charge sheet is filed to the court the things are beyond the control of police and automatically the court will step in. At the first stage the court will look into whether it exist a prim face case or not; and the second stage would be the procedural compliance by the investigating officer  during collection of evidence. If there is any procedural non-compliance at any stage of investigation certainly it will be fatal to the prosecution case. In fact it’s a ground to acquit the accused without looking into the merit of the case[5] .

For a quality investigation the first and the foremost requirement is the police should be unbiased and corruption free. Its alarming that the present conviction rate is approximately between 15 to 20% while rate of the incidence  of the crime is always increasing[6]. The most interesting fact is that out of 15-20% of acquittals 40-50% cases are acquitted on the basis of procedural non-compliance[7]. These low rates are indicative of a failing institution. In UK the conviction rate in rape cases are 93% and 96% in man slaughter cases and overall conviction rate is 86%.[8] It has been reported by the United States Department of Justice that 93% conviction rate. The recent study conducted by the Centre for Media Studies(CMS), in its report, 2018 says that police department is the most corrupt department among the public sector. The survey has been conducted in 13 states which says that Rs. 313 crore has been paid as bribe to police department to get a compliant or FIR registered; Rs 460  crore as bribe to remove the name as an accused or witness and Rs. 234 crore to avoid a ticket for violating traffic rules. CMS also reported in 2017 that the estimated bribe amount which was paid to the police is around Rs. 1007 crore[9]. These corruptions will indeed hamper the  unbiased and fair police investigation  and its apparent if we analysis the case studies of last 20 or 25 years. So the question which needs to be pondered is whether fair investigation is really a myth in India? Let’s discuss the few instances of defective investigations in India reported between 2008-2019.


There are plethora of instances of defective investigations. The few instances of defective investigation are hereunder which will ease the understanding for the requirement of investigating magistrate[10]. In State of Gujarath v. Kishanbhai[11],  the Honourable Supreme Court made some scathing observations about inefficiency and failure of the prosecution agencies in handling the investigations of the crimes. In the instant case a six year old girl was raped and murdered. The trial court completely relied on this prosecution story and he has been convicted. However the High Court and apex court acquitted the accused on the following grounds such as  (i) non-examination of witness Mr.X who is a prime witness in this case.[12].(ii) By not producing Mr.X as a witness, the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the person who had pledged the anklets to the said witness. (iii) It was mentioned in the charge sheet that there were few external injuries on the body the accused and immediately after the apprehension he was taken to the hospital and got the report on same. However, the prosecutor failed to produce this report before the trial court which is serious irregularity committed by the prosecutor.[13] (iv) The victim was not medically examined within 24 hours of the incident even though the police came to know the commission within three or four hours. This serious lapse in the investigation of the case, had also resulted the omission of a vital link in the chain of events. By considering all the relevant facts and the laches committed by the police the court reluctantly acquitted the accused and also uphold the decision of the High Court.

In Pawan @Diggi v.  State of Delhi[14], it was found by the court that the entire FIR was a  cooked up story which the court sited many reasons to that. It was a murder case of a lorry driver alleged by five or six persons.  In the first statement of the witness didn’t mention about the accused , but in his supplementary statement he made certain improvement and in the same statement he mentioned the name of the accused which is quite suspicious. Thereupon the police arrested only the appellant and not others. It becomes more suspicious when arrest / the identity of the other four accused is in question. Moreover, the court raised few questions which is unanswered by the prosecution with regard to  unwanted custody of PW 15 for two days; particulars and arrest of the other accused; No medical examination of PW15 even though he stated that he was injured by the assailant ; no independent witness in the arrest memo of the accused; no test identification parade etc.

In Chamkaur Singh and others v.  Amiritbir Singh and others[15] , the accused was charged under section 302 of IPC for murdering his grandfather, father , mother and sister. On the basis of the 173 report[16] the court conducted the trial and eventually acquitted the accused. Immediately the state constituted the Special Investigation Team (SIT) and found that the investigating officer who investigated the case did not carry out proper investigation and failed to examine material witness. State filed petition for the production of additional evidence under section 311 of the CrPC. The court held that by referring to section 391 and 386 of CrPC, in rarest of the rare case  and for the purpose of justice the court can allow additional evidence or order retrial either wholly or partly. The court found that it’s a deliberate faulty investigation led by investigating officer ; ordered for another investigation against the officer under Prevention of Corruption Act; pertinent scientific evidence has not been produced nor included in the investigation report; few important witness are turned hostile because of the influence of the accused. Hence, the court consider it as an exceptional circumstances wherein retrial can be ordered. In all the cases where there is a wrongful acquittal because of the faulty investigation, the police is at complete liberty to conduct an departmental inquiry and let the same can be produced before the court to convince it  and to act accordingly. Eventually, the court ordered to set aside the entire verdict in the first trial and ordered for denovo trial.

In Rajiv Singh v. State of Bihar[17], charge of murder was attributed upon the husband for killing his wife. By acquitting the accused the apex court made a certain remark on the shoddy, casual, laconical and insensitive investigation conducted by police investigation in this case.  The personal diary of the deceased which was seized by the police had not produced before the trail court. The imperative witness Dr.P who had conducted the DNA test was not examined instead the Forensic Director was examined who himself stated that he is not an expert in DNA test and accordingly the same report was rejected. Moreover, the investigating officer failed to ascertain when and how the poison was administered as found in the viscera of the dead body. Hence the investigation in this case is having a serious flaws even for a minor things which is not expected from a prudent officer and eventually it leads to the acquittals of the accused on the ground of benefit of doubts.


It has been  outlined unequivocally in the procedural law  that the investigation is the exclusive domain of the police and not even the courts including the constitutional courts cant interfere into the process of investigation. Only on very limited circumstances the court can interfere in the police investigation.[18] Section 156 (3) provides an extra ordinary jurisdiction to the magistrate having jurisdiction to keep  a check upon the investigating police officer performing the duties envisaged under Chapter XII of CrPC. The section emphasis that the police is not doing its duty of investigation or has not done it satisfactorily, the court can issue a direction to the police to do the investigation properly  and can monitor the same on the receipt of the complaint filed by the aggrieved party. Here what is pertinent  is  “the court can only direct to conduct proper investigation” which means no interference but only to oversee the progress of the investigation. In Naresh Khatri v. Sate of Gujarath[19], the apex court was very categorical that the power of the court to interfere with an investigation is limited. It’s the exclusive domain of the police. The functions of the magistrate and the police are entirely different and the magistrate cannot impinge upon the jurisdiction of the police by compelling them to change their opinion so as to accord with his view.[20] The faith of a case is largely depend upon  the investigation report and it should be error free. If investigating officer is biased certainly it will reflect in the case diary. It was held in Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v Central Bureau of Investigation and another[21],  that “The investigating officers are the kingpins in the criminal justice system. Their reliable investigation is the leading step towards affirming complete justice to the victims of the case. Hence they are bestowed with dual duties i.e. to investigate the matter exhaustively and subsequently collect reliable evidences to establish the same.” Biasness need not be proved , however,  from the face of it appears to the court that its biased the entire investigation can be set aside o that ground.

The honourable Supreme Court in Prakash Singh v. Union of India[22] has directed all the states to set up State Security Commission in all the states to prevent undue political interference upon the police especially during investigation. Moreover it also directed to set up Police Complaint Authority to handle the complaints against police. However, these recommendations are still on paper, even though the supreme Court has retreated so many  times in the recent past.[23]  The question here is if the investigation is flawed ipsofacto can anybody say that the prosecution case is weak. If we get an affirmative answer, then the preposition would be the police and the prosecutor will decide the faith of the case and the court has no role in it.[24] If this is the concept then certainly it will affect the credibility of the court. There lies the clear distinction between court of law and court of justice. In fact I completely agree with the argument that when there is no evidence on record the court can’t go beyond it and outcome will be wrongful acquittal. In National Human Rights Commission v. State of Gujarat[25] held that the primary and the most imperative duty of the court is to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice which is often referred as the duty to vindicate and uphold the majesty of law. For a better dispensation of justice the presiding officer must cease to be a dormant and must elicit all relevant materials necessary for reaching the correct verdict. The court administering criminal justice must ensure that the court shall not entertain vexatious or malicious litigations which leads to the abuse of the process of the court and appropriate action  shall be taken on time.

There are good number of instances where the court convicted the accused even though the investigation was defective per se.. In Raj Kumar Khatana v. State and Another[26], there was a serious lapses committed by the police in terms of procedural irregularities, collections of FLS, recording of statements etc. But the prosecutor contested the case strongly and ended in conviction the court held the prosecution has been proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence conviction. At same time the session judge took punitive steps against the investigating officer.

The most important observation made by the apex court that  mere adherence to the simple and the very ordinary procedure would solve the major issue of defective investigations.  Non-compliance is a proof of sheer negligence committed by the investigating officers. Let me put in this way, let the police commit the mistake but the prosecutors should apply their minds and all the errors should be rectified then and there and if it appears of serious lacunae the prosecution shall not refrain from instructing further investigation in the case. It’s the primary duty of the prosecutor that he has to confirm that all the material evidence and the evidence on record are corroborating with the depositions of all the witness and no contradictions. It also the duty of the prosecutors that he has to ensure that all the witness has been include in the charge sheet and same must be examined, without any exclusion, in the court accordingly. By following the above procedure, in most criminal proceedings, the concerned agencies, police and the prosecutors will be able to successfully establish the guilt of the accused.

In this process the investigation report is a crucial document which determines the conviction and acquittal of the accused. Hence it’s expected that quality and unbiased investigation from the police. In Pawan@Diggi v. State of Delhi[27],the honourable Delhi high court held that  “ the investigation team discharges a very onerous public duty to carry out the investigation in every crime which they are expected to perform with all sincerity, dedication, honesty, leaving no scope for loop holes or gapes, before filing the charge sheet for the commencement of the trial. The duty of the investigating team is not merely to bolster a prosecution case with such evidence as may be enable the court to record the conviction but  to bring out the real unvarnished truth”[28].  The high level of responsibility is headed upon the investigating agency since it’s the legitimate expectation of state. The courts and the investigating agency has to ensure that investigation is fair and it doesn’t hamper any individuals liberty at any level except rule of law. It’s a fact that judiciary is having a less role to interfere in investigation and in very limited grounds the high court can oversee things. Hence its huge burden upon the police to carry forward the faith reposed by law upon it. However the court can reject those reports which are not in consensus with the law. The Maxim Contra Veritatem lex nunquam a liquid permittit which means it’s the duty of the court to accept and accord its approval only to a report which is result of faithful and fruitful investigation.

The errors committed by the investigating officer in most of the cases are very ordinary procedural non-compliance which public/ state is legitimately expecting the compliance of the same from the  investigating officer. This strongly gives to a presumption that either the police is biased or ignorant about the proceedings. Fair investigation is the fundamental canons of our criminal jurisprudence and they are quite in conformity with the constitutional mandate contained in Arts. 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India.[29] Further the court concluded by directing the police commissioner to take appropriate disciplinary action against those delinquent police officers. Further in Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar[30] “enunciated the principle, in conformity with the previous judgments, that if the lapse or omission is committed by the investigating agency, negligently or otherwise, the prosecution evidence is required to be examined de hors such omissions to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not. The contaminated conduct of officials should not stand in the way of evaluating the evidence by the courts, otherwise the designed mischief would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party”[31].

In Dayal Singh case[32] the court issued a caution that in such situations there is a greater responsibility upon the court and the court must seriously deal with persons who are involved in creating designed investigation. The courts have a vital role to play”.[33] So here what is required is that judge should be proactive. He shall not be a mere spectator. He should rise to the occasion and court must be court of justice rather than court of law. The honourable Supreme court in Kishanbhai case[34] and Prakash singh case[35]  has given remarkable guidelines to revamp the investigation within the police system. But it’s very difficult to believe in such a way that many changes made so far but still the quality of investigation is missing to the core in police even after 70 years of independence.  Hence I personally believe that the investigating  police should be under the supervision of judiciary.


The three principle functionaries in the administration of the criminal justice are Police, Judiciary and correctional institutions. Criminal law sets into motion through police and it passes through judiciary and correctional institutions. Hence coordination and cooperation is required between these three institutions is inevitable. However, if you look at the instinctiveness of these three institutions, you could see that police and the correctional institutions are directly under the control of government whereas the judiciary is autonomous and independent body.[36] Since its independent the judiciary is always having the prerogative to dominate and control over the police and correctional institutions.  In India there is no direct association of the judicial wing with the investigation of cases by police.[37] “ when a power under section 173 (8) is exercised, the court ordinarily should not interfere with the statutory powers of the investigating agency. The court cannot issue directions to investigate the case from a particular angle or by a particular agency” held in Popular Muthiah .v State , Represented by Inspector of Police[38]. By understanding the limit under the CrPC its high time to amend few provisions of the code and make the investigation as a pre trial judicial process. The following are the few advantages of separating the investigating department from law and order.

  1. Mere separation will not serve the purpose since even after the separation the possibility of political or any other interferences may again hamper the very purpose of separation. It’s a matter of fact that politicians do interfere with the investigation directly or indirectly if their vested interest is getting affected by the outcome of the investigation. Hence investigating police should be ­kept under the direct supervision of an investigating magistrate­. It has been reiterated and condemned since independence by various committees and commissions[39] that political interference with the working of the police and suggested ways and means for making the police true agents of the law and not servants of the party in power. And it’s a general trend that when a new government come into power they used to shuffle the hierarchy of police by appointing their favourites.
  2. It is assumed that when the investigation is overseen by the magistrate and the public prosecutor at least in the heinous cases, there is more likelihood of strict compliance of procedure as well evidence would be more conformity with law. This will certainly enhance the conviction rate, efficiency of investigation and the prosecution. And also the menace of wrongful acquittals and convictions which is due to the flaws of investigation can be rectified to the core.
  3. The problem of unjustified prosecutions will be resolved and it will reduce substantially when there is a check by the investigating magistrate. Hence we can call the investigating magistrate as a safety walve against malicious prosecution. It’s a common trend in India since the police is enjoying the vast power the false cases has been registered frequently and this created a serious setback to our legal system.
  4. Speedier investigation is an unknown fact in India. It’s not guided by any period of limitation. It may take years even for a summons case. Hence the idea of separation of police into two would help in completing the investigation within the reasonable time. One of the reason for the cause of speedy investigation is as a result of such separation the investigating wing will be relieved from all kind of law and order duties. This will help them to avoid distractions and increase the quality of investigation. The efficient investigation requires certain qualities such as dedication, concentration, analytical ability, capacity to draw inferences and conclusions by a through and incisive analysis of the collected data etc which can be assured only through the bifurcation of police as suggested above.
  5. Indeed, bifurcation will increase the expertise of the investigating police as in the case of specialized agencies such as CBI, CID, vigilance etc and would result in more of successful detections and the state prosecutions.
  6. It will certainly increase police legitimacy.
  7. Not having been used in any law and order duties involving use of force like tear-gassing, lathi- charging and firing, they would not provoke public ire and hatred which stand in the way of police-public co-operation in tracking down crimes and criminals and in getting information, assistance and intelligence in this regard which the Indian police, like their counterpart in UK under the common law, have a right to get under the provisions of sections 37-44 of the Cr.P.C[40].


It has been seen that the sheer negligence or laches whether intentional or not committed by the police is causing a serious setback to the prosecution case which apparently ending up in wrongful acquittal. It’s really high time to change the existing system into a result oriented mechanism in terms of quality investigation  and prosecution. Mere increase in the conviction rate in not the sole idea of reformation, the idea would be to create a system that would pave a quality investigation and prosecution. We have illustrated good number of cases which is evident that in the pre-trial process the police and the prosecution doesn’t have any coordination. It’s the duty of the prosecutor to assist the investigating officer. The prosecutor generally will not interfere in the investigation and he act only when the investigation report is being submitted to him by the investigating officer for further proceeding. The law is very clear and also the honourable apex court has retreated in good number of instance that if the prosecutor is not happy the investigation he can direct the police officer to cure the deficiency by conducting further investigation or including a new evidence or a new witness. But unfortunately now it become a mechanical process that whatever submits by the investigating officer, the prosecutor is simply without applying its mind forwarding the same to the magistrate which apparently ends in wrongful acquittal. The low conviction rate is the clear indicator of failing institution. I strongly believe that mere separation of crime department from the law and order section will not serve the purpose. In order to enhance the efficiency of the police investigation department ,  it should be independent in the similar lines of judiciary. So this will eliminate the political interference and ensures transparency in investigation. Secondly to increase the efficiency of the investigating officers, there shall be an exclusive investigating magistrate who can oversee and guide the investigation of the police so that the procedural  and investigative flaws committed by the police can be rectified forthwith at the instance of the investigating magistrate and in such cases one can expect a quality investigation report and can ensure better conviction rate. Further it is assumed that when the investigation is overseen by the magistrate and the public prosecutor at least in the heinous cases, there is more likelihood of strict compliance of procedure as well evidence would be more conformity with law. This will certainly enhance the conviction rate, efficiency of investigation and the prosecution. And also the menace of wrongful acquittals and convictions which is due to the flaws of investigation can be rectified to the core. The problem of unjustified prosecutions will be resolved and it will reduce substantially when there is a check by the investigating magistrate. Hence we can call the investigating magistrate as a safety walve against malicious prosecution. It’s a common trend in India since the police is enjoying the vast power the false cases has been registered frequently and this created a serious setback to our legal system. It may be a radical thought which is very arduous in a country like India where a political will is required for implementing the same. Justice V.S. Malimath  Committee has suggested fifteen years ago that the entire criminal justice system in our country needs an over haul. Another Judge Kamal Pashas has expressed his views that the entire criminal justice system needs to be revised in tune with the existing scenario.  In this context the need for making investigation a pre trial judicial process need to be discussed seriously.

This Article is written by Asst. Prof. Ramakrishna Das P.R working as an Assistant Professor at  Faculty of Law University of Delhi.


[1] Preamble of the Police Act, 1861.

[2] It has been retreated by the honorable Supreme Court  in plethora of cases that arrest search seizure etc. should be reasonable and the investigating officer must be in a position to substantiate the grounds of same .

[3] Vakil Prasad Singh V. State of Bihar; 2009 Cri.LJ. 3721.

[4] FIR is not an indispensable requirement for the investigation of crime. Even without the FIR or on mere suspicion the police can conduct investigation. See State of Maharashtra v. Sarangdharsingh Shivdassingh Chavan (2011) 1 SCC 577; (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 477.

[5] Certain procedure are mandatory and certain procedures are discretionary. Here we are taking about the mandatory proceedings which the  inevitable during investigation.

[6]Need for change as rate of conviction pitiable”, Economic Times, 29/08/19, Available at //economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/70885024.cms?from=mdr&utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst, last seen on  02/09/19.

[7] The NCRB data’s are often conflicting with the statistics of the different NGOs regarding the crime rate, acquittal and conviction rate etc. The Crime report 2015 says the conviction rate is 30% which is contradicting with NGOs reports and even with the UN reports. It’s a strake fact that hardly there are studies on acquittals on procedural noncompliance by the police.

[8] Criminal Justice Statistics quarterly, England and Wales, April 2017 to March 2018 (provisional), Ministry of Justice , England and Wales, 2018.

[9]“CMS says police department most corrupt” Deccan Chronicle, (New Delhi, 20th May, 2018). < www.ressreader.com.> Last seen on19/ 07/2019.

[10] The case analysis is limited to only four case due to various constrains. For more cases , Ashok Tshering Bhutia v. State of Sikkim, 2011 Indlaw Sc 129; State of Delhi v. Ashok Kumar Jain, 2014 Indlaw Del 707; Prakesh Singh v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC !, Dayal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal, (2012)8 SCC 263; Zakia Ahsen Jafri v. Sit & Others, 2017 Indlaw Guj 298,; state of Jharkhand v. Sanjay Mondal, 2013 (4) ILJR; Raj Kumar Khatana v. State and other,  2016 Indlaw Del 1710; Niranjan Gosai and Others v. State of Jharkhand, 2017 Indlaw JHKD 565.

[11](2014) 5 SCC 108 , Also see AnnepuPrasadarao S/o Chittibabu v State of Andhra Pradesh, 2017 Indlaw HYD 294; State Government of (NCT of Delhi) v Gurjinder Singh @ Barjinder Singh and another, 2014 Indlaw DEL 1971.that it might belong to th girl lking about. medetly he went to the police station and informed that it might belong to th girl that it might belong to th girl lking about. medetly he went to the police station and informed that it might belong to th girl

[12] Immediately after the commission of crime the accused pledged the anklets to the Mr.X for Rs.1000/-. Further the prosecution case is that immediately after coming to the knowledge of commission of crime through newspaper, he went to the police station and informed that it might belong to the girl mentioned in the newspaper report. Had he examined by the prosecutor, the prosecution could have easily  identified the identity of the accused.

[13]In the given case, the court is concerned with few medical reports which is unavoidable in every murder cases. In the first instance, when the accused was apprehended he was severely injured. It’s the procedure that in such  cases the accused should be medically examined and the particulars of  the external injuries should be recorded by the doctor. In the instant case,  the accused was taken to hospital but the medical report is not produced along with investigation report. The second report which the court was concerned is regarding the blood stains in the cloth of the accused, probably it could belongs either to the accused or victim. But no test has been conducted in this regard. It’s an another procedure in rape cases that if the accused is arrested within 24 hours of the incident he shall be subjected to medical test including semen test which would substantially prove the guilt of the accused person.  This is also not happened in this case.that it might belong to th girl lking about. medetly he went to the police station and informed that it might belong to th girl

[14] 2014 Indlaw DEL 268.

[15] 2014 Indlaw PNH 3420.

[16] Investigation Report under section 173 of CrPC.

[17] 2015(13) SCALE 901.

[18] Here it’s not the actual interference by the court but only the court can oversee that the investigations are on the right track. It can’t dictate that the investigation has to be in a specific direction or in a particular way of modus operandi .

[19] AIR 2008 SC 2180.

[20] Sanjay Bansal & Others v. Jawaharlal Vats & others;  2008 CrLJ 428.

[21] (2013) 6 SCC 348, Para 52.

[22] 2006 Indlaw SC 514.

[23] Rakesh Kumar Paul v State of Assam, 2017 Indlaw SC 871;Pabbisetti Suresh Kumar v State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad and others, 2017 Indlaw HYD 310, 2017 (4) ALD 239; Dr. T. P. Senkumar IPS v Union of India and others, 2017 Indlaw SC 299, (2017) 6 SCC 801, AIR 2017 SC 2628, JT 2017 (5) SC 33, 2017 (2) KLT 453, 2017 (4) MLJ 95, 2017(5) SCALE 166; Adarsh G. K. S/o K. Gopal Krishna, General Secretary, Bangalore v State of Karnataka, Home Department Vidhana Soudha, by its Principal Secretary, Bangalore and others, 2017 Indlaw KAR 2804; Vivek Singh and others v Mohan Singh Tomkiyal and others, 2016 Indlaw UTT 487; Ranjit Singh Bath and another v Union of India and others, 2016 Indlaw PNH 3188, 2016 (4) RCR(Criminal) 540B.

[24] In fact  that is the concept under adversarial system, the judge should be neutral.

[25] (2009) 6 SCC 767, 2009 Indlaw SC 589.

[26] 2016 Indlaw Del 1710.

[27] 2014 Indlaw DEL 268.

[28] Prakash Singh v. Union of India and others, (2006) 8 SCC 1.

[29] Supra 7, Para 32.

[30] AIR 1999 SC 644, 1999 Indlaw SC 437. The court also discussed about the relevance of witness and its role in criminal trial. Also see Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. [(2006) 3 SCC 374], 2006 Indlaw SC 639 .

[31] Ibid,  Para 30.

[32] Dayal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal, (2012) 8 SCC 263.

[33] Ibid .

[34] Supra 11.

[35] Supra 22.

[36] Article 50 of the constitution. The State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.

[37]  The judiciary has no say upon investigation unless and until the special circumstances warrants the interference under 156(3), 200, 482 etc of CrPC.

[38] (2006) 7 SCC 296.

[39] Punjab Police Commissions (1961-62);The Delhi Police Commission (1968); The Gorey Committee on Police Training (1972), National Police Commission (1977-8-), The M.P Public Police Relation Committee (1983); Malimath Committee (  2003 ).

[40] Union of India v. Madan Dey, 1991 Cr…247 (Cal.) Also see Deb R., “Need For Placing Investigating Police Under Judiciary” (1992) 34 Journal of the Indian Law Institute 271-274.

Scroll to Top